In answer to your question “as to what we should do?” in regard to reinstating our Constitution and the Powers of the Queen; I would like to suggest that we write a friendly and informed letter to the Members of Parliament that I would trust, just a small group, and my personal choice would be: Jacob Rees-Mogg, David Davies, Boris Johnston, Andrea Jenkins, Ian Duncan Smith and Bill Cash, of course there are others, including some in the Lords and from other parties, who you might prefer.

Anyway, it is a thought, but I think Albert has already advised them of the relevance of our constitution, which must be adhered to, many times, but they do not take a blind bit of notice. However, now that reference [after the 30 year rule] to the F.O.I. papers of Heath’s treason are in the National Press, maybe they will at last take notice. I find it shocking that the law on this subject is not being upheld by our judiciary, and a case brought against all our Prime Ministers who have signed away our sovereignty. Not being able to trust your law-enforcers is extremely worrying. Your comments most welcome

Elizabeth========================================================

(One for Albert, please. Your thoughts on how this might be used, would be appreciated.)

As Blair and his administration committed treason, anything he did, his government did and indeed everything done by parliaments since Heath’s European Communities Act signing in 1972 (and before, as recently mentioned) was and is null and void. Because all governments since Heath’s treason are unlawful assemblies and as treason has no effect in law it cannot create, repeal or modify law - particularly not constitutional law, common law or common law of kingship. Therefore the Queen retains all her powers and authorities as Sovereign Queen of England as Elizabeth has touched on below.

A question would then be, how to point out to and convince HM that she has all the powers she had at Coronation that she might wish to exercise such as dissolving Parliament as we have pointedly requested of her in the past. It’d be one thing to make these points with (say) Boris Johnson who seems to be the one person currently with any interest in such matters and ideally it’d need many more such minded people in Westminster to press the issue of the Queen’s powers as it seems to me HM is so intimidated by “her ministers” that she’d never act assertively without considerable backing, support and assistance from us, her loyal subjects. I believe she might well be in fear of her own politicians.To whom else might it be said then, such that somebody in an appropriate position could be able to raise / press the issue of the Queen’s treasonous side-lining / nullifying by politicians, with a view to ‘reinstating’ HM’s full authority over her POLITICAL SERVANTS ? Also to enable her use of those powers. What about informing (say) the Princess Royal ? ? ?

Food for thought ? ? ? (Also, who else might be included in this thinking ?)

I am sure the text below is correct and valid and it raises the even more important question, why is our Constitution routinely ignored by Westminster ?

Why is the role of the Head of State [a Constitutional Monarch] not being exercised as our Constitution : allows / demands. ?

The Queen meets HER appointed Prime Minister on a weekly basis as our representative but we are not told what she : says – asks – demands or instructs, on our behalf. WHY ?

Has HM asked HER P.M. why she has not implemented the electorate’s instruction to withdraw us from the EU ? We voted to LEAVE, not negotiate future trading terms.

In the absence of a satisfactory reply, WHY has SHE not replaced HER P.M. as in fact Gough Whitlam was dismissed in 1975 when the Queen gave the Royal Assent to an Australian Parliamentary bill and the Governor General served it .

A national debate on our Constitution is required as a matter of some urgency. And an investigation into who chose to disregard it, and why.

Peter =================================================================================PRAEMENURIE AND PROVISOS are two laws we need back. They were according to the Law Commission, repealed because no one had been prosecuted for breaching them for so long that they were “obsolete”. It came as a surprise to them when I pointed out the purpose of law is not to punish crime but to prevent crime. The fact that no one has been prosecuted for these offences for hundreds of years does not signify the laws are obsolete but that they are working very well, doing their job in the prevention of crime. The LC were doubly surprised when I pointed out there is no principle of obsolescence in English law. As long as a law works, it stays. These are both treason laws and as their ‘repeal’ has permitted treason to occur - which has damaged this, our ancient Kingdom - the repeals were treason and are therefore voided by the Common Law. THEY ARE THEREFORE STILL IN FULL EFFECTAlbert